|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2005 : 08:04:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Dr. Mabuse wrote: I will never cease to be amazed over what religious people can be tricked into believing.
Way to stay on subject.
Seriously, WTF is the deal with all the angry atheists out there who take any and every opportunity possible to slam religion even in the broadest sense. It's cool to criticize something harmful that a religious group is doing or supporting. But these blanket insults are tiring and make you look arrogant and insecure. There are atheists who fall for dumb theories, and there are religion people who are both highly rational and compassionate.
Having been a former member of the Pentecostal Church (and other churches in Sweden) for more than 10 years, I have some experience to back me up when I say that religious people are generally more susceptible to (false) conspiracy theories than agnostic/atheistic people.
If my disappointment in "people of the Faith" is making me an Angry Atheist(tm), then so be it. I'm trying to keep a level head, but sometimes I can't ignore the history I have with them. It hurts poking around in wounds that hasn't fully healed. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 10:06:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Please remember that there are differing ideas on the cell phone calls from the planes. The truth might be more complicated. But next time you're in a plane, try calling someone you know on your cell phone. I bet you won't get through.
At cruise altitude, this is true. Cell towers range usually is Line of Sight for 2 miles. This means that if you are flying below say 10,000 feet, you will probably be able to get a signal.
Also, those planes carry the phones in the back of the chair, which work at any altitude.
I didn't know about the phones at the back of the chair. Haven't seen one myself. I also don't know if it was concluded such phones were used by the passengers on 9-11 or not.
Regarding cell phones, I did read a study by a Canadian investigator who concluded that cell phone contract was quite unlikely (but not entirely ruled out) *at even low altitudes.* This is because the plane is travelling sufficiently fast relative to the cellphone towers such that there is not enough time for any one tower to establish connection before the signal is out of range.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 10:20:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The structural failures of towers one and two have been done to death by structural engineers. They failed because of the fire. WTC7 failed due to a raging deisel fire which, untreated, caused the building to collapse.
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf
Note that the article states that no other such steel structures have ever been observed to collapse by fire. Perhaps they shall start demolishing such steel structures in the future using deisel fuel rather than spending weeks carefully planting explosives in all the major joints? There really *should* be an attempt in the future, when it's time to topple a similar steel structure, to see if mere fire will actually do the job. Afterall it apparently downed three other buildings in short order. Yet I doubt that this experiment will be carried out.
It is also worth noting that with the twin towers wind sheer has caused greater deviation from vertical than with the airliner impacts.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 10:28:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. MabuseHaving been a former member of the Pentecostal Church (and other churches in Sweden) for more than 10 years, I have some experience to back me up when I say that religious people are generally more susceptible to (false) conspiracy theories than agnostic/atheistic people.
Really what is needed is a study. Personally I have known many people in baptist, non denominational and charismatic churches in Canada over twenty years, and only *one* has shown any interest in governmental conspiracy theories. (And he happened to be an artist, if that means anything.)
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 10:37:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
It is also worth noting that with the twin towers wind sheer has caused greater deviation from vertical than with the airliner impacts.
It's also worth noting that the above statement shows that you don't give a rat's ass about the actual physics involved in making such a judgement (that the towers should have swayed more due to the planes than due to the wind). Or, perhaps you'd like to show us the equations you've worked through to demonstrate the greater of the two forces? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 13:02:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The structural failures of towers one and two have been done to death by structural engineers. They failed because of the fire. WTC7 failed due to a raging deisel fire which, untreated, caused the building to collapse.
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf
Note that the article states that no other such steel structures have ever been observed to collapse by fire. Perhaps they shall start demolishing such steel structures in the future using deisel fuel rather than spending weeks carefully planting explosives in all the major joints? There really *should* be an attempt in the future, when it's time to topple a similar steel structure, to see if mere fire will actually do the job. Afterall it apparently downed three other buildings in short order. Yet I doubt that this experiment will be carried out.
It is also worth noting that with the twin towers wind sheer has caused greater deviation from vertical than with the airliner impacts.
Mark
Aircraft fuel took a few hours before the structure failed, the diesel fire was going seven hours before structural integrity failed. Explosives are the most reliable and quickest way to bring down a building. Structural engineers have explained time and again where steel looses tensile strength at very high temperatures. Ones that a normal office type fire would not produce without a copious amount of accelerant.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/EVDS/people/faculty/profiles/lee/bldgsc/brick/Chapt7.PDF
I think this sums it up quite nicely and also is from a non-US governmental source to boot.
Your absurd notion that few have not failed strictly due to fire is absent the kind of pervasive fire that is required. Bottom line, fire departments know how to do their jobs. They do them very, very well and knock down or strike out fires before they become a danger to steel structures. WTC7 wasn't attempted to be struck out in the entire 7 hours it was burning. Let any structure burn for 7 hours at high temperature and it will fail.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 09/27/2005 13:06:09 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 16:02:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Really what is needed is a study. Personally I have known many people in baptist, non denominational and charismatic churches in Canada over twenty years, and only *one* has shown any interest in governmental conspiracy theories. (And he happened to be an artist, if that means anything.)
I was referring to conspiracies in general. Like when I was told (but did not believe like the others) that the rock band WASP got their name from the acronym "We Are Satan's People", and that there are satanic backward messages on Led Zeppelin's "Staiway to Heaven" and Pink Floyd albums. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/27/2005 16:08:12 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 16:07:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I didn't know about the phones at the back of the chair. Haven't seen one myself. I also don't know if it was concluded such phones were used by the passengers on 9-11 or not.
You haven't seen those little phones?!? You swipe your credit card and they bill you some ungodly sum to call down to earth. I don't know which planes or types of planes have them, but they aren't uncommon. Guess it depends on how frequently one travels by plane, I guess. And yes, it has been documented that at least some people did use those phones. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 08:36:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I didn't know about the phones at the back of the chair. Haven't seen one myself. I also don't know if it was concluded such phones were used by the passengers on 9-11 or not.
You haven't seen those little phones?!? You swipe your credit card and they bill you some ungodly sum to call down to earth. I don't know which planes or types of planes have them, but they aren't uncommon. Guess it depends on how frequently one travels by plane, I guess. And yes, it has been documented that at least some people did use those phones.
The Boeing 777 has them. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 16:30:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse:
I was referring to conspiracies in general. Like when I was told (but did not believe like the others) that the rock band WASP got their name from the acronym "We Are Satan's People", and that there are satanic backward messages on Led Zeppelin's "Staiway to Heaven" and Pink Floyd albums.
So who are those backwards messages from, if not satan? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 18:44:01 [Permalink]
|
markie, you've implied that you also think that WTC 1 & 2 were demolished by explosives. If I'm correct in inferring this, you really need to have a look at the NIST draft report Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft). In particular, see the photos which are included as figure 6-6 on page 241 of the pdf file, and figures 6-17 through 6-21 on pages 255 through 258. You can see the exterior columns of both buildings buckling under the abnormal loads imposed by the impact damage and the fires just before each building collapsed. There's no need to invoke putative bombs to explain the collapses- the incipient structural failure is visible to the naked eye.
If you go through the entire report you'll see a remarkable effort at reconstructing a disaster made by people who took considerable pains to validate their models against reality, by experiment where possible, else by checking the predictions made at each step against what could be determined from the photographic and other physical evidence. In the end, their predictions of what probably happened tallied rather closely with what was actually observed.
Looking at how many different scientific and engineering disciplines were involved in studying the WTC towers' destruction, you might also realize that for predicting the behavior of large and complex structures under conditions of extreme abuse "common sense" and conspiracy-mongers' appeals to it are useless. If you wouldn't rely on common sense to know how to design those buildings, you can't rely on it to understand how they fail.
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2005 : 19:15:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
If you wouldn't rely on common sense to know how to design those buildings, you can't rely on it to understand how they fail.
Markie believes he can "intuit" how the entire Universe operates. You think he's going to doubt his own conclusions on two little ole buildings?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 19:58:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
markie, you've implied that you also think that WTC 1 & 2 were demolished by explosives. If I'm correct in inferring this, you really need to have a look at the NIST draft report Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft). In particular, see the photos which are included as figure 6-6 on page 241 of the pdf file, and figures 6-17 through 6-21 on pages 255 through 258. You can see the exterior columns of both buildings buckling under the abnormal loads imposed by the impact damage and the fires just before each building collapsed. There's no need to invoke putative bombs to explain the collapses- the incipient structural failure is visible to the naked eye.
If you go through the entire report you'll see a remarkable effort at reconstructing a disaster made by people who took considerable pains to validate their models against reality, by experiment where possible, else by checking the predictions made at each step against what could be determined from the photographic and other physical evidence. In the end, their predictions of what probably happened tallied rather closely with what was actually observed.
Looking at how many different scientific and engineering disciplines were involved in studying the WTC towers' destruction, you might also realize that for predicting the behavior of large and complex structures under conditions of extreme abuse "common sense" and conspiracy-mongers' appeals to it are useless. If you wouldn't rely on common sense to know how to design those buildings, you can't rely on it to understand how they fail.
Now *that*, ktesibios, has got to be one of the most rational posts I have read here. After reading your post and briefly surveying the pdf document, I have changed my mind about the WTCs being demolished by explosives.
Of course the story is bigger than the way the towers collapsed and I am still highly suspicious of complicity with US intelligence in the attack. But at least you have helped my mind change on this particular, thanks.
Mark
|
|
|
|
llDayo
New Member
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2005 : 10:26:30 [Permalink]
|
| Wow...I recently started looking at this site again and this thread just makes me weep for our country. I've never seen such a blatant disregard for evidence by the original poster and the childish resortment to attacking everyone who disagreed with him (which seemed to be everyone). It's one thing to present evidence and debate whether you're right or wrong, it's another to just yell and swear hoping to out blast your opponent. Again, I weep. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2005 : 10:36:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by llDayo
Wow...I recently started looking at this site again and this thread just makes me weep for our country. I've never seen such a blatant disregard for evidence by the original poster and the childish resortment to attacking everyone who disagreed with him (which seemed to be everyone). It's one thing to present evidence and debate whether you're right or wrong, it's another to just yell and swear hoping to out blast your opponent. Again, I weep.
Sadly, that's a common behavior for said thread-starter. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
